All I'm doing is imagining the wavlength that can travel within the horn which IIRC affects low frequency output. The black lines are the hugantic panels you used (hehe) and the red is representative of what should have happened.

No - you're not doing it right. The panels are NOT centered on the drawing lines, they are set outside the throat/mouth drawing lines. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand. Look at the plans for a WO. All panels are set to the outside of the lines. THEREFORE panel thickness doesnt effect the mouth/throat area except for a VERY minor change on total line length. Look at the picture I took of the layout sheet. The left side lines are the lines made from laying out the WO. The lines on the right show the material position which is on the OUTSIDE of the layout lines. This shows quite clearly the only thing effected is the total line length. I doubt very seriously that 3/8" would make much difference. This is where I got the Plans - http://www.decware.com/Whornok.htm It also clearly shows the panels on the OUTSIDE of the layout lines. Now are we gonna continue on the "you made it wrong cause your wood is too thick rant"? The only thing the thinner panels would have helped would be the size of the closed chamber and the volume of the compression chamber - which I have stated more than once now.

Steve, after we put it together i opened that area up slightly. My calculator showed it should've been larger than it would've been had i not done so. Output level was as expected....frequency response however...hehehe. Gonna be fun making a real WO someday. In hindsight I shold have used thinner material on the Outside long panels. But as I stated several posts ago I don't own a planer and don't have any 3/8" material laying about. Still....3/8" wouldn't have made a helluvalot of difference in total line length, especially at the high frequencies these driver operate at - LOL. When I opened those small areas up the spot in question ended up being a hair over 1/2" wide - not the 1/4" on the layout board. this shortened the total line length another 1/4" - *gasp*. That adds up to a whopping 5/8" - OMG!!! LOL. ANYWAYS....this was just for chits and giggles and i still doubt seriously scaling a WO below an 8" woofer would be worth the effort.

Really? do you have it corner loaded or just sitting out on the floor? I'd love to see a frequency curve just out of curiosity. I'm thinking of building a scaled one for some 8" woofers we have laying around. Just need more wood, money, and time. I'm prepping my VW for my first ever SPL competition. Hoping I can eek 138 out of a single Diamond Audio 10" sub with a measly 300 watts. If my experiment works I may just up the ante to 2 10" subs and a MUCH larger amp . This of course requires money......Hope my raise comes thru soon

that would be corner loading - when i did the frequency tests they were all facing to the db meter - had to make it somewhat fair for the sealed and closed box - hehe. I've only made one and don't intend to use it every day - if ever. so i guess the answer would be - not yet - lol.

that would be corner loading - when i did the frequency tests they were all facing to the db meter - had to make it somewhat fair for the sealed and closed box - hehe. I've only made one and don't intend to use it every day - if ever. so i guess the answer would be - not yet - lol.

might be your problem, all my wos work amazing when firing away from me, but sounded like poop fireing straight at me.

not really a problem - the half-scale was just an experiment. didn't expect it to sound decent to start with I just want to see how it would perform as opposed to a sealed or ported enclosure. I can prolly fix the hollow sound it has by lining part of the horn with something but like i said - it was an experiment.